Comments on Fritzy the Great: SleekXMPP

Hi, i tried to checkout your code but it displays ...

2009-05-11T04:54:00.000-07:00

Hi, i tried to checkout your code but it displays following error

Command: Checkout from svn://netflint.net/sleekxmpp, revision HEAD, Fully recursive, Externals included
Error: Unknown hostname 'netflint.net'
Finished!:

All,

I do really understand licenses. When...

2008-11-11T19:09:00.000-08:00

All,

I do really understand licenses. When I was looking for python xmpp libraries to use at work, I needed one where I could add in some proprietary pieces I was not allowed to release.

Basically, the choices were pyxmpp (LGPL) and xmpppy (GPL). (jabberpy was abandoned, and still needs a complete rewrite.) I was more than happy to submit core changes back to the project. I was not willing to "free" everything I ever did to the project.

I look at it like the Baen free library, where you can download certain books absolutely for free. The issue book authors have is that people haven't read them, and spending money + time is the hurdle. Software projects are similar, I propose. An LGPL project allows for that. GPL does not.

Different licenses are good for different things. For libraries, I really dislike the GPL. I argue that that is why the jabber XMPP libraries aren't as popular as others.

But, it's not my project. Just my $0.02.

I haven't been able to get some roster management ...

2007-11-12T11:29:00.000-08:00

I haven't been able to get some roster management features working with sleekxmpp, in particular I'm trying to add and remove contacts from my roster.

Is there a way to do this that I'm missing? Or is this something I should hack on an submit a patch back?

Folks authoring code like to release code licensed...

2007-06-14T10:39:00.000-07:00

Folks authoring code like to release code licensed under the GPL because they would like to obligate the user to give back changes to the authors code in products they release, as well as the entire source code to the product using the authors code.

Folks using open source code in their commercial products like to use code released under BSD or MIT licenses so that they have no obligation to give anything they've used back to the community that generated it. Not the code they borrowed from the author, nor the rest of their application need be released. In fact, the MIT license doesn't even have to credit the author, except for the inclusion of a copyright message (which, by the way, is not required, by the license itself, to be visible to the end-user).

Using a BSD or MIT license almost certainly will spread adoption of your library beyond the use of the GPL. However, you may never know. You may get mysterious support emails from folks using your code in a "pet project" that is "not quite ready" and thusly has not been released yet. I know someone who provided close to 20 hours worth of free support to someone using his MIT licensed module, only to find out later on that all he got out of it was his copyright notice embedded at the end of some really long click-through EULA.

As a compromise, if you wish to receive changes to your released code, but don't want to force adopters to release the code to their whole app, just use the Lesser GPL (LGPL).

Perhaps Andrew is interested in the fact that you've scrupulously avoided looking at other implementations, have cooked up yours from scratch, proclaim a clean modular architecture, and are willing to relicense in such a way that a project he's involved in might profit from your work. This is not a accusation, but an interesting thought-experiment. What other possible reason would there be for the LGPL to be "dicey", unless one did not want to give back changes to the author? Patent protection (which you don't get from MIT/BSD licenses either)?

It's not your problem that another enterprise that wants to use your code may have an idiot legal department that doesn't really understand software licensing.

Consider the importance of *your* effort and *your* work. Besides, his examples are of dead projects... why should you care that those projects are dead?

Heheh, where do all these exploiters come from. Se...

2007-04-06T02:22:00.000-07:00

Heheh, where do all these exploiters come from. Seem quite selfish to ask SleekXMPP to licensed under MIT or BSD license just so that you can wrap up the library in your jabber client and laught all the way to bank.

Great! The MIT and BSD licenses work pretty well....

2007-04-05T09:42:00.000-07:00

Great! The MIT and BSD licenses work pretty well. A python library like yours that implements the XEPs in modules, has a lot of built-in documentation for use. I think a project like that has a lot of use for XMPP compliancy tests.

I'm definitely open to the idea of other licenses....

2007-04-04T20:23:00.000-07:00

I'm definitely open to the idea of other licenses. I haven't made an official release yet, and I may release a future version under a different license. I'm simply the most familiar with GPL, so that's where it sits for now. I can likely be convinced to use another license.

Would you consider releasing SleekXMPP under a dif...

2007-04-04T19:13:00.000-07:00

Would you consider releasing SleekXMPP under a different license than the GPL? XMPPpy (http://xmpppy.sourceforge.net/) is GPL, PyXMPP (http://pyxmpp.jajcus.net/) is LPGL, as is jabberpy (http://jabberpy.sourceforge.net/, and quite dead).

Releasing libraries under the GPL realy limits their use. Even the LPGL libraries can be dicey for use in some projects. Releasing SleekXMPP under a non-GPL license could do great things for the widespread use of both SleekXMPP and XMPP use in python.